Hi all. I do not consider me being an expert with setups, but I'm a bit puzzled about the following: In face of the upcoming OLFSL event I did quite some racing on Kyoto GP with the FOX and a setup of my own, which was actually a race_1 with less downforce and stiffer antirolls. My lap times settled around 2:21.xx and I didn't see any way to get below 2:20. So I asked for some setups from those nice guys passing me all the time and had a look at the settings. While downforce was the same as I had used before already, the suspension settings have been very extreme for all of them: Front height max, back height almost min (looks pretty strange btw), all stiffness and bumper settings max or near to it, one had even tyre pressure to max. I gave it a try on track and it felt - no surprise - pretty much uncomfortable and less authentic. Car was somewhat bouncing around due to the extremely stiff setup. But... it cost me two laps only to improve my pb by almost 2 secs. So it worked definitly. Back to the initial question: Is this realistic? I'm missing a bit the aspect of "well-balanced" here. Also I would have expected, that at least you can't cut the curbs any longer without taking off now and then with such a setup, but that was still easily possible. But maybe I'm totally wrong and you guys will tell me now...

No its not realistic. There is a known serious bug in the aerodynamics model which basically means that the aero force acts perpendicular to the wing, rather than relative to the airflow.

This means that if you set your car with the nose up in the air, the wings actually impose a forward component of force on the car as well as slightly reduced downforce. This gives you greater acceleration and speed.

I would expect that it will certainly be fixed in the first incompatible physics patch.

Quote from colcob :

This means that if you set your car with the nose up in the air, the wings actually impose a forward component of force on the car as well as slightly reduced downforce. This gives you greater acceleration and speed.

Thanks for that - I was raking my brain for a couple of days as well trying to figure out why it was faster that way, kept looking at replays of hotlaps and seeing cars with gear ratios and aero setups similar to mine have about 10km/h faster top speed... had forgotten about the static angled force vector... now it makes sense (in a nonsensical way ofcourse).

EDIT:
I wonder if such a setup would be useable in a long-distance race like the upcoming 50 (or 40) lap KYGP in OLFSL.

Quote from colcob :

... if you set your car with the nose up in the air, the wings actually impose a forward component of force on the car as well as slightly reduced downforce. This gives you greater acceleration and speed...

This explains a lot indeed. Actually I feel a bit like cheating now that I know it, when using such degenerated setups in order to gain from irregular forces...

Is it me or is it often an exploit that makes setups faster ?!
No wonder the myth of Setup-vs-Skillz still lives.

This is THE post on the subject:
http://forum.rscnet.org/showthread.php?t=212696
and Scawen's response from that thread:
http://forum.rscnet.org/showpost.php...9&postcount=46

Although it's a bug, it does have some realistic consequences which are also
demonstrated in that thread. Some indy/irl type cars actually run 'high nose'
setups because of a similar reason, their front wing has a built-in angle so
they can't 'set it to 0'. By leaning the whole body backwards, they lower the
front wing's angle of attack to reduce drag. This is mainly an advantage on
ovals.

Similar results are observed in LFS. The physics are different, which is why
it's a bug, but the result is relatively the same, a decrease in front wing
drag (put simply). In both cases, real life and LFS, the low/null front wing
AoA is mainly an advantage on ovals. The look of nose-high formula cars
also adds a touch of realism, since real race cars actually do it.
For a bug, it's a pretty good bug.

Also, i'm not aware of the rules, but if they have rules specifying minimum
wing angles, then this is an 'exploit' irl as much as that bug in LFS imo. It's a
way to intentionally go around a rule while disregarding the general intention
of the rule. As unsportmanship as it sounds to some, that's part of any sport.
In fact, it's human nature Finding ways to surmount obstacles to reach a
goal. As far as animals go, we are VERY good at it.

Quote from colcob :

No its not realistic. There is a known serious bug in the aerodynamics model which basically means that the aero force acts perpendicular to the wing, rather than relative to the airflow.

1) its not a bug, its an exploit.
2) has nothing to do with aero force on wings from what i recall. of course it acts relative to the airflow. any jump on 2 wheels can prove you that.
3) its all about undertray effect linked to angle/and height (lacks code)
4) its nothing that wasnt observed during testing, yet to test is one thing, to implement is another. takes more time to complete the incomplete model than just for me to say , "hey man its incomplete".
5) even when thats coded, a slightly tilted back car will probably still be useful in ovals, as any irl oval event can show you, since the effective angle of wings is reduced. the downsides will however appear then and make it not attractive for roadcircuits.

Well than i'm somewhat of an exception cause as it has often been mentioned that this "bug" could make cars faster, i'm still not using it cause it's a cheat imo. Well you mentioned the exeption of oval racing with formula cars but i think on normal race tracks setting up the (race) cars front higher than the rear would result in a take off on high speeds like the ones we saw on the Mercedes CLK-GTR (think it was) in LeMans (was it 1999?). P.S. : I know that they had other problems on the cars but essentially this is what would happen imo.

By the way: Having a look at the current hotlaps times at OLFSL reveals a pretty suspicious gap at 2:20. Actually this is exactly the region I jumped over when changing from a "standard" setup to the "exploiting" one. Can be a casual coincidence of course, but maybe it separates those two ways of setting up the car...?! :detective

Well it'll be an entirely different approach to tuning suspension and downforce settings once the model uses even just the dynamic angle of attack of the wings (which would vary with speed - more downforce then the more the suspension lowers, etc).

But I still have to ask, would this kind of setup be any good in a non-oval long-distance race or is it just good for hotlapping?

Nice find fonnybone!
Interesting to know that indeed the wing's downforce is caculated relative to the car's position, hehe.

And very interesting to note that the community managed to find it out quite correctly !

Quote from KiDCoDEa :

1) its not a bug, its an exploit.
2) has nothing to do with aero force on wings from what i recall. of course it acts relative to the airflow. any jump on 2 wheels can prove you that.
3) its all about undertray effect linked to angle/and height (lacks code)
4) its nothing that wasnt observed during testing, yet to test is one thing, to implement is another. takes more time to complete the incomplete model than just for me to say , "hey man its incomplete".
5) even when thats coded, a slightly tilted back car will probably still be useful in ovals, as any irl oval event can show you, since the effective angle of wings is reduced. the downsides will however appear then and make it not attractive for roadcircuits.

Hey there calm down. I'm guessing you havent read the 4 page thread in which Scawen admits its a bug. Its effectively a logic error in that the code works how its intended but the formulation of the logic is incorrect.

I wasnt having a go at him, just pointing out the facts. Here is Scawen's take on it from that thread.

Quote from Scawen :

I think the analysis on this thread is right, it did make me laugh. Just funny how people always find out how to exploit the physics bugs in any game.

I had a look in the code and in this case it's true that the downforce and resistance forces produced by the wings in LFS cars with downforce, do indeed act relative to the vertical (z) and longitudinal (y) axes of the car's body. So it doesn't surprise me that it could be giving you an extra speed boost, compared with running the car level.

It's well known that the aero is underdeveloped at the moment. This was of course implemented as a "reasonable approximation" for the current model. I did not realise until now that the wrongness of it would lead to this high front exploit...!

So maybe you can get down off your high horse then. You're defending someone who has already admitted the error.